Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
Topic #2: WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT BY THE "MILITIA"
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army" to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)
"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
The framers of the constitution made their views on firearm ownership abundantly apparent. People like you are just closing their eyes and covering their ears.
The new Slashdot crowd is not-so-much with the critical thinking. It's not "Democrats are blood-sucking vampires, Republicans are mindless zombies."
Vampire movie ==> Singular evil sucking the lifeblood out of the masses Zombie movie ==> Mindless masses sucking the lifeblood (brains) out of a few individuals
Go take an English Lit class and learn to read a little bit further into the subtext.
The names of companies and other organizations are usually regarded as singular, regardless of their ending: "General Motors has announced its fall lineup of new vehicles." Try to avoid the inconsistency that is almost inevitable when you think of corporate entities as a group of individuals: "General Motors has announced their fall lineup of new vehicles." But note that some inconsistency is acceptable in all but the most formal writing: "Ford has announced its breakup with Firestone Tires. Their cars will no longer use tires built by Firestone." Some writers will use a plural verb when a plural construction such as "Associates" is part of the company's title or when the title consists of a series of names: "Upton, Vernon, and Gridley are moving to new law offices next week" or "Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego & Associates have won all their cases this year." Singular verbs and pronouns would be correct in those sentences, also.
I bought a 20" G5 iMac right before Christmas. My amd64 system is sitting in the closet. I play games on my 55" T.V. with my XBox. Now I'm going to buy an iPod. So much for their market research. Oh, and by the way, it is absolutely, without a question, the finest desktop operating system I have ever used.
I wonder how many of these 'Apple's just protecting their rights' people own Macs? Or just forked over $1400 for a Mac w/ a superdrive? What they're really saying is 'Hey that's not fair! I bought a whole new system to burn my shit to DVD!!! Why should they get to do it on their old really expensive hardware when I had to buy new really expensive hardware to do it?' What a fucking joke. Just like us linux zealots have rose-colored glasses for all things GPL, they have aqua-(and tangerine, mind you)colored glasses for all things that come from that evil-empire wannabe.
do remember that consumers are the one's who really foot the bill of any tax levied in the U.S. amazon.com could give two shits if the government adds a patent tax, they'll just pass that cost on to the pour souls who buy books from them. who does a system like that really help? (other than tax lawyers and accountants)
Why are you so hostile? In this great psuedo-socialist country we call America, he has just as much right to speak his opinion as you do. And for you information, there are a number of very fine physicists, chemists, and IT professionals that are also Christians. Just because they are not usually the most vocal in a given group doesn't mean they don't exist. And what do you draw your broad, hateful conclusions based on? You probably know nothing of the majority of Christian (not Catholic, not Mormon) theology. People are so disdainful of that which they do not know. I'll be away from my computer over the weekend, so if you'd like to flaim me the address would be: birchler@umr.edu
Tiger, don't come down on Biblical doctrine until you've given yourself a chance to actually find out what it says. The AC answering you isn't contradicting himself, he's just not able to explain himself to someone who's hasn't been exposed to the majority of Christian theology. Paul said in Romans "it is by grace you have been saved...not by works so that no one can bost." But I believe it was Peter (don't quote me on that) that said "without works, faith is dead." and also that the tree that does not bear good fruit will be trimmed and cast into the fire. What the apostles are saying is that all sin can be forgiven, but if you accept Christ, and allow the Spirit to work in your life, you should desire to not sin. It doesn't say your absolved from all responsiblity, but rather if you're repentent (very important point in the teachings) your sins can be forgiven. If you would like further discourse about this, you can email me at birchler@umr.edu. I won't preach, or try to convert you, or even try to convince you. I will try to answer any questions you might have though. later homey.
The "Killer App" all of us Trolls have been waiting for! What would this godsend be called? Why the refresh button of course! Refreshing Slashdot.org until you get your shot at 'first post' have never been so easy!!! what's that you say, Netscape has always had a refresh button?............ oh, damn. you're right. nevermind.
Slashdot Mirror
Check your history for context.
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
Topic #2:
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT BY THE "MILITIA"
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)
"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
The framers of the constitution made their views on firearm ownership abundantly apparent.
People like you are just closing their eyes and covering their ears.
The new Slashdot crowd is not-so-much with the critical thinking. It's not "Democrats are blood-sucking vampires, Republicans are mindless zombies."
Vampire movie ==> Singular evil sucking the lifeblood out of the masses
Zombie movie ==> Mindless masses sucking the lifeblood (brains) out of a few individuals
Go take an English Lit class and learn to read a little bit further into the subtext.
Damn technically inept kids these days. Get off my lawn!
According to Webster:
The names of companies and other organizations are usually regarded as singular, regardless of their ending: "General Motors has announced its fall lineup of new vehicles." Try to avoid the inconsistency that is almost inevitable when you think of corporate entities as a group of individuals: "General Motors has announced their fall lineup of new vehicles." But note that some inconsistency is acceptable in all but the most formal writing: "Ford has announced its breakup with Firestone Tires. Their cars will no longer use tires built by Firestone." Some writers will use a plural verb when a plural construction such as "Associates" is part of the company's title or when the title consists of a series of names: "Upton, Vernon, and Gridley are moving to new law offices next week" or "Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego & Associates have won all their cases this year." Singular verbs and pronouns would be correct in those sentences, also.
Spreadsheets SHOULD NOT BE PROGRAMS for fsck's sake. This is just encouraging more idiocy. I think it's time for me to go home now.
I bought a 20" G5 iMac right before Christmas. My amd64 system is sitting in the closet. I play games on my 55" T.V. with my XBox. Now I'm going to buy an iPod. So much for their market research. Oh, and by the way, it is absolutely, without a question, the finest desktop operating system I have ever used.
I wonder how many of these 'Apple's just protecting their rights' people own Macs? Or just forked over $1400 for a Mac w/ a superdrive? What they're really saying is 'Hey that's not fair! I bought a whole new system to burn my shit to DVD!!! Why should they get to do it on their old really expensive hardware when I had to buy new really expensive hardware to do it?' What a fucking joke. Just like us linux zealots have rose-colored glasses for all things GPL, they have aqua-(and tangerine, mind you)colored glasses for all things that come from that evil-empire wannabe.
AMEN brother storm!!! burn the lawyers, they're the root of all evil. really, they are.
do remember that consumers are the one's who really foot the bill of any tax levied in the U.S. amazon.com could give two shits if the government adds a patent tax, they'll just pass that cost on to the pour souls who buy books from them. who does a system like that really help? (other than tax lawyers and accountants)
who gives a shit about Dhry stone and Whet stone? i want the Q3Arena benchmarks. mp3s prOn and Q3 are the only thing i use a computer for...
Why are you so hostile? In this great psuedo-socialist country we call America, he has just as much right to speak his opinion as you do. And for you information, there are a number of very fine physicists, chemists, and IT professionals that are also Christians. Just because they are not usually the most vocal in a given group doesn't mean they don't exist. And what do you draw your broad, hateful conclusions based on? You probably know nothing of the majority of Christian (not Catholic, not Mormon) theology. People are so disdainful of that which they do not know. I'll be away from my computer over the weekend, so if you'd like to flaim me the address would be: birchler@umr.edu
Tiger, don't come down on Biblical doctrine until you've given yourself a chance to actually find out what it says. The AC answering you isn't contradicting himself, he's just not able to explain himself to someone who's hasn't been exposed to the majority of Christian theology. Paul said in Romans "it is by grace you have been saved...not by works so that no one can bost." But I believe it was Peter (don't quote me on that) that said "without works, faith is dead." and also that the tree that does not bear good fruit will be trimmed and cast into the fire. What the apostles are saying is that all sin can be forgiven, but if you accept Christ, and allow the Spirit to work in your life, you should desire to not sin. It doesn't say your absolved from all responsiblity, but rather if you're repentent (very important point in the teachings) your sins can be forgiven. If you would like further discourse about this, you can email me at birchler@umr.edu. I won't preach, or try to convert you, or even try to convince you. I will try to answer any questions you might have though. later homey.
The "Killer App" all of us Trolls have been waiting for! What would this godsend be called? Why the refresh button of course! Refreshing Slashdot.org until you get your shot at 'first post' have never been so easy!!! what's that you say, Netscape has always had a refresh button? ............ oh, damn. you're right. nevermind.
i'm a smelly carney, but i like to use computers. i also like hot grits poured down my smelly pants. does that make me weird?